Jeremy Balfour
Independent · Scotland
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption.”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption.”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election?”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Jeremy Balfour, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“Craig Hoy: Will the cabinet secretary concede the point that alarm bells were ringing about the sustainability of Scotland’s social security budget before the spring statement and that we put those questions to the Government at that point? How does the Government intend to plug the £1.9 billion gap that we will face by the end of this decade? She cannot simply say that the money will turn up from somewhere; she must start to plan for that now. Will there be tax rises, or will there be public service cuts? Shirley-Anne Somerville: The first thing that we could do to prevent some of those issues would be to come together and send a strong message to the UK Government that it should not make the cuts that it is about to make, which will have an impact on our budget.”
“We are told—I presume that this is said to reassure us—that many of the proposed cuts and those that are already starting to be made by the UK Government do not impact on Scotland, so we could take different decisions on ADP. Indeed, we can. However, the member who said that will say in the same speech—or another member from the same party will say—that we need to consider the financial sustainability of our social security system and drive down social security expenditure in Scotland. I gently point out that there is a contradiction in washing our hands of concerns about what is happening at a UK level while, at the same time, insisting that we need to drive down social security expenditure.”
“He raised very important points on health and the importance of recognising the link between the health service and economic inactivity. One of the examples that he gave was autism, but there are others. He was quite right to raise those points. That is exactly why we have the operational improvement plan in place and why we are investing to bring down waiting times. The Government, including my colleague Neil Gray, recognises the link between health services and economic inactivity. Many members talked about the fiscal sustainability of social security, which is integral to the discussions that we need to have. However, I gently point out that some contradictory principles have flowed through the debate.”
“For example, she has had recent meetings with business and third sector leaders to talk about what additional measures need to be taken to reduce economic inactivity. She and other members of the Government will say more about that in due course. Willie Rennie: Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of autism services and the current concern right across the country that the abandonment of shared care arrangements with private consultancies is having a direct impact on people’s ability to get work? What discussions has she had with her colleague Neil Gray, who is sitting next to her, about making that change? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Quite rightly, clinical decisions should not be in the hands of politicians. I was going to come to Mr Rennie’s contribution later, but I will do so now.”
“Many members talked about economic inactivity, and they were quite right to do so, because helping people into fair and sustainable jobs in order to address economic inactivity is exceptionally important. Indeed, it is central to the Government’s vision of a fairer and wealthier Scotland. Devolved employability services have a pivotal role to play in providing support. The no one left behind approach is about supporting people into the right job or the route that is best for their circumstances. Statistics have shown that about 20 per cent of participants in the no one left behind programme were economically inactive at their start date, but support is available and the Deputy First Minister is undertaking work to build on that.”
“This morning, I had a very useful and polite meeting—as I always do—with Stephen Timms to discuss some of the issues. As always, there was much disagreement on policy, but, even when there are policy disagreements, we need to find a better way of dealing with the practicalities. We are not there yet. For example, even if we do not make any changes, I do not know whether the ADP will be able to be relied on if the work capability assessment is scrapped. That is not good for the Scottish Government in relation to how we administer benefits and, as many members have pointed out, it is very problematic and concerning for the individuals who will be involved. Liz Smith made an exceptionally fair point that both Governments need to rise to the challenge in that regard.”
“We have seen the handbrake turn that the UK Government has made on pension-age winter heating payments, and now we see changes to PIP or work capability assessments that will have very significant impacts on the budget and on how benefits are administered. I agree with Liz Smith that we really need to find a better way of doing things, and it is absolutely key that the responsibility lies with both Governments. For example, when we look to implement any changes that might come from the ADP review that is currently being undertaken, I keenly recognise that we have to be very clear with the UK Government about what the changes are and what the implications are. We need the UK Government to do the same, but we are not yet at that stage.”
“We cannot remain where we are; we must be bold in our thinking and protect the vulnerable but also protect the budget that we all need to look after. 16:48 Shirley-Anne Somerville: I thank all members who have contributed to today’s debate. I begin by mentioning the thoughtful contribution that Liz Smith made—as she always does—right at the start of the debate, particularly when she talked about the complexity of our now having devolved and reserved benefits and the interaction between them. In recent years, there have been a number of examples of that complexity having real and direct impacts on the Scottish Government’s ability to administer the devolved benefits system.”
“I hope that we can dispense with the idea that ADP and PIP are in any way linked to income or employment. If we are to avoid a true crisis in social security, we must start having grown-up conversations about how we make it both generous and sustainable. I agree with the cabinet secretary when she says that social security is a social investment, but we need it to be an investment that we can afford. On a number of occasions, members and the cabinet secretary have failed to say where the money will come from to pay for the looming deficit. My party and I are committed to being part of the solution, and I am open to being involved in cross-party talks to come up with one. I hope that we can have a much more constructive debate, perhaps after next year, on where social security goes in the decades ahead.”
“As a brief aside to that point, I note that a talking point that seems to be becoming more of a concern in many corners of the Scottish political landscape is the plan to cut disability benefits such as ADP and PIP in order to instead get disabled people into employment. Let us be clear: those benefits are not means tested. They were never intended to be income replacement benefits. They are paid to help disabled people so that they are in a position to take part in society. In many cases, without PIP or ADP, those people would never be able to go to work or leave the house. Able-bodied people do not require help to get up in the morning and get ready; I, and many others, do require help. Many disabled people would not work without such help. As I have said, those benefits are not an income replacement; they are a field leveller.”
“It will mean giving up the benefits arms race, in which each party promises more and more unsustainable budget increases in the hope that they can push the consequences far enough down the road that someone else will have to deal with them. As other members have pointed out, we should instead be promoting economic growth, which would have the dual effect of raising more revenue to sustain lifeline payments while decreasing the number of people who rely on out-of-work benefits—the rising tide of growth lifts all boats. A number of speakers—Liz Smith, Craig Hoy and some from the Labour benches—have pointed to the changes that are set out in the green paper on being able to go in and out of employment. Those are welcome, and we need to take them forward.”
“In 21st century UK, that must be unacceptable. Closer to home, we have a Scottish Government that simply seems to be unwilling to deal with the fact that there are difficult decisions to be made. As other members have pointed out, it has been forecast that, by the year 2027, there will be a £1.3 billion deficit in the Scottish social security budget. We are yet to hear anything from the SNP on how it proposes to address that deficit. Social security and welfare are teetering on the edge. We must have a grown-up discussion on how we will address the looming crisis, which will mean having to lay aside partisan self-interest and dogmatic adherence to ideologies in order to look at pragmatic solutions.”
“This is not easy. In prioritising certain benefits, we necessarily need to take away from others. That is the reality of government—hard decisions must be made and defended. That is the predicament that the UK Government now finds itself in. It is taking decisions to balance the budget. Unfortunately, a number of decisions that it has taken, such as the cuts to PIP, are at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As the Glasgow Disability Alliance pointed out in its briefing for the debate, under the additional qualifying criteria for PIP that are suggested in the green paper, disabled people who are unable to fully dress themselves, unable to get in or out of the shower without assistance, unable to feed themselves without assistance or unable to go to the toilet without supervision may no longer qualify for PIP.”
“However, a number of decisions have been taken that inflate the cost of benefits. The value of awards has increased over the years, and the criteria for various payments have been expanded, meaning that more people are eligible for support today than was the case in previous generations. Those decisions, which are taken by Governments, have consequences. They are not necessarily bad decisions, but they require sacrifices in other areas to make the cost sustainable. Shirley-Anne Somerville: Jeremy Balfour is on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which has considered many Scottish statutory instruments that I have introduced. Can he confirm that he has supported them all and, indeed, that he has lodged an amendment on uprating? Jeremy Balfour: I am absolutely happy to confirm that, and I will come to that in a moment.”
“I remind members that I am in receipt of ADP. It has always been a problem in politics that there are very few easy questions and even fewer easy answers. As Willie Rennie pointed out, social security has never been a simple topic. Since its inception, Governments have had to deal with questions of who gets how much of what, balancing generosity with how we pay for it. However, I can say confidently that, today, we face a landscape that is more challenging than ever before. More people than ever qualify for benefits, creating an ever-growing bill that is becoming less sustainable by the day. That is due to a number of factors, many of which are out of the control of either the UK or the Scottish Governments. For instance, an ageing population creates more demand for retirement- age and disability payments.”
“I move amendment S6M-17242.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert: “agrees that any reforms to social security policy must respect the dignity of work, while also being fair and protecting the most vulnerable who are unable to work; notes the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper and that its proposals are currently under consultation; recognises that a number of the areas covered in the Green Paper are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and will therefore not change as a result of the Spring Statement; notes the proposals within the Green Paper to support and encourage people into good work and to reduce bureaucracy for those in receipt of social security; welcomes that this is backed up by a £1 billion commitment for employability services across the UK; acknowledges that well-paid, secure work is the most sustainable route out of poverty; welcomes, therefore, the action taken by the UK Labour administration to increase the National Living Wage and improve rights for workers through the Employment Rights Bill, and is concerned that the disability employment gap in Scotland is wider than elsewhere in Great Britain, that one in four people in Scotland rely on welfare spending from the Scottish Government to cover their living costs and that there are as many as 84,000 young people in Scotland who are not in work, education or training.” 15:23”
“There is a serious debate to be had about the need for reform of the system more generally, and it is a shame that the Scottish Government is not particularly stepping up to that debate, either today or more widely. Labour believes in the dignity of secure employment, recognising that it is the most sustainable route out of poverty for those who can work, but that we must protect those who cannot. I encourage everyone to engage constructively in the consultation and the process, even on the reforms that will be carried out at both UK and Scottish levels.”
“I accept the points that have been made about the interconnectedness of payments, including gateway payments, which Liz Smith and other members have referred to. There will have to be proper consultation and communication on that from the DWP to the Scottish Government. I return to employability, because it is extremely important that we have a focus on that in Scotland. At the same time as we have faced the challenges that I was outlining prior to Mr Balfour’s intervention, the uptake rate of the devolved job start payment has been only 21 per cent. In addition, in recent years, there have been significant cuts of around £30 million to the Scottish Government’s employability budget.”
“We all want more people to be in employment, particularly those with a disability. However, does Paul O’Kane recognise that getting more people into employment does not necessarily mean a reduction in ADP or PIP payments? The point of ADP and PIP is to help those with a disability to get into employment, thus there would not necessarily be a cut in ADP just because more people were in employment. Paul O’Kane: I was just coming on to talk about ADP and PIP and trying to understand our devolved context in relation to ADP. The reforms to PIP are at UK level; we have already explored that in the opening speeches. ADP is devolved to this Parliament, and it is for this Parliament to decide where ADP goes in the future with regard to its sustainability.”
“We have approached the question of how to deliver the adult disability payment in the best possible fashion by working with disabled people under that independent review. That is exactly what the independent review is undertaking at the moment, and I look forward to its final report from Edel Harris in due course. Social Security Scotland (Effectiveness) 4.”
“I understand that a review of the adult disability payment in Scotland is on-going and that it will issue its report this autumn. Does the cabinet secretary think that that is an opportunity for us to have a whole look at the ADP, its criteria and how it could work better for disabled people in Scotland? Shirley-Anne Somerville: As Jeremy Balfour has alluded to, the ADP review is on-going and is independent of Government; it is led by Edel Harris. The whole point of that is to ensure that ADP is examined and to see how it can be improved. However, that is even more difficult when we are facing cuts to personal independence payment from the UK Government, which will impact on the Scottish Government’s budget.”
“I have made it clear that my priority and commitment is to get the Promise bill right for the people who want to see it.”
“I appreciate that the minister had a tough appearance at the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning, where she was repeatedly unable to provide a timescale for the introduction to Parliament of the Promise bill. I give her another opportunity to redeem herself by stating simply when a bill on the Promise will be laid before the Scottish Parliament, so that the Education, Children and Young People Committee can finally scrutinise the detail. Natalie Don-Innes: It is my intention to introduce the bill to Parliament prior to the summer recess. I explained in committee that I am not able to give any further commitment or more detail because of the requirements of the legislative process and the on-going work on the content of the bill.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the allocation of additional funding for health and social care, in light of the Edinburgh integration joint board’s reported plans to end funding for its third sector grant programme. (S6O- 04494)”
“Research by Young Lives vs Cancer shows that children with cancer wait an average of six months for disability benefits in Scotland, leaving struggling families without support. Will the First Minister remove the three-month qualifying period for children with clear medical evidence, ensuring that financial aid starts at diagnosis, so that no child in Scotland faces additional hardship at an already overwhelming time for them and their family?”
“We have also implemented a wide range of anti- poverty measures, including the Scottish child payment and mitigating the bedroom tax and the benefit cap to address issues that we know contribute to households presenting as homeless and to negate the need for them to enter temporary accommodation.”
“We have touched on amending the Housing (Scotland) Bill to require social landlords to investigate and address issues that, if left unattended, could cause health problems or worse, as in the case of Awaab Ishak. That measure would provide tenants in the social rented sector with assurances that their homes will be of good quality, and we are engaging with the private rented sector on that. Scotland has strong homelessness rights, which mean that households have the safety net of temporary accommodation when that is needed, as a legal right. We are taking action, and we are seeing those actions coming through. The number of children in temporary accommodation has dropped in 20 local authorities, and the number of voids is also falling.”
“As Mr Rennie mentioned, there are specific pressures in Glasgow, but we are discussing that particular point with the UK Government. On Meghan Gallacher’s point, of course we take responsibility for our actions. That is why we have the £768 million, the temporary accommodation fund and the £4 million for that. We will engage with Shelter on that point, too. Of course we have taken responsibility—that is why we have taken the actions that we have decided to take. On a point that Graham Simpson made, the cabinet secretary is not here because she has a long-standing meeting with the UK Government—I wanted to put that on the record. Willie Coffey made the point that parties of all colours are involved. All local authorities are involved.”
“On investment, she knows as well as Graham Simpson does that I value the impact of build to rent, mid-market rent and other investment opportunities. Just this afternoon, we met the housing investment task force, which has produced recommendations. The Government will look at those and will get back to that group quickly. We acknowledge the value of that area. The task force also fed into the rent controls discussion. As I said, we will come back to that point. Willie Rennie made a point about looking at opportunities in the investment sector, and Mr Rennie and I have talked about the value of bringing investment into Scotland. We need that. It is not just about Government funding; it is about funding from other areas as well. Mr Rennie made a point about asylum issues, which we are discussing with the UK Government.”
“Meghan Gallacher: Will the minister accept any responsibility for the actions of his Government that have led to a housing emergency and the issues of temporary accommodation for children? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, I can give you the time back. Paul McLennan: I will come back to that point. On the amendments—[Interruption.] I said that I would come back, and I will come back to the points that were made by Meghan Gallacher after I address Mark Griffin’s points. We discussed the UNCRC. We will vote for the Labour motion, but we are also trying to acknowledge the progress that has been made. Meghan Gallacher made a few points about the task and finish group, which fed directly into the Housing (Scotland) Bill.”
“Reducing the number of households and time spent in temporary accommodation is a priority for the Government, as it is for everybody else. Housing is critical to the delivery of our national mission to eradicate child poverty. I think that Marie McNair made the point that the UK Government’s announcement yesterday on disability benefits will not help the housing situation at all. It will push more people, including more families with children, into homelessness. The Scottish Government spends more money per person on discretionary housing payments than the UK Government does. Again, the UK Labour Government can help on that. We are spending £97 million in 2025-26, which is an increase on 2024-25. Again, the UK Government could help us to reduce the figures that we talked about. I want to talk about some of the amendments.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, I can give you the time back. Paul McLennan: I am happy to answer that point. Our action is in consultation with local authorities. The situations of local authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere are all different. We have targeted an increase in the budget to £768 million. The increase in voids and acquisitions funding is an important part of that. We have talked about the £4 million pilot for the Scottish empty homes partnership. We think that it is better to work in engagement with local authorities on their specifics. That is demonstrated in the action that we are taking and in the reductions that 20 local authorities have had in temporary accommodation for children. That is an important point.”
“We have been working, and will continue to work, in partnership with local government. We will not support the Tory amendment, for the very reason that we have been working very closely with local authorities on their housing emergency action plans. We think that it is better to work with local authorities on their own local housing emergencies rather than the national picture. We have seen the effect of that, through a reduction of about 40 per cent in Edinburgh, for example. Mark Griffin: Will the minister take an intervention? Paul McLennan: Yes, if I have time. Mark Griffin: What is the point of declaring a national housing emergency if the Government will not take national responsibility? We would be as well just to leave the 32 councils to get on with it and not bother with declaring a national housing emergency in the Parliament.”
“I have talked about the £200 million that is increasing housing supply, and I will come on to Meghan Gallacher’s point about investment in a second. We are all, rightly, concerned to hear of the experiences that children described in the research of living in conditions that breached the unsuitable accommodation order. Of course we are—everybody is. The action that the Scottish Government is taking now is intended to move us out of the housing emergency, but that will take time and requires a sustained and joint effort from all parties. I will touch on that in a second. As was mentioned, local authorities—of all colours—are responsible for that, too. They are all working extremely hard to increase the supply of social, affordable housing and deliver services for people who experience homelessness.”
“The Tories had that policy for a number of years and knew the impact of it, so they have to take responsibility on that point. That report mentioned that the policy on local housing allowance pushed people into homelessness, which the Tories have to acknowledge. Our ambition—all members’ ambition—is for every household to have a settled home, and we are firmly committed to reducing the number of households that are in temporary accommodation. I will touch on the point that Willie Rennie made about voids and acquisitions. In engaging with the housing to 2040 group, we have worked with local authorities on targeting homes that need to be purchased for families with large numbers of children. That is a targeted focus, and a reduction in temporary accommodation has started in 20 local authorities. That is key.”
“In response to the research findings, Shelter Scotland stated that we—all of us— “have a duty to act” on what we have heard. The Government is already acting. I talked about the £768 million investment in acquisitions and voids funding, which has enabled reductions in Edinburgh, as I think Foysol Choudhury mentioned, and in four other areas that are under the most sustained pressure. However, we all need to act on the issue together. One key thing that was in the Crisis report was the need for the UK Government to act on local housing allowance and tackling poverty. Local housing allowance is being frozen again, and the Crisis report mentioned that that has the biggest influence in pushing people into homelessness. We need the Labour Government to act on that and, again, I ask colleagues from the Labour Party to engage with that.”
“The only way to solve the problem is to build more houses, yet what have we seen under this Scottish Government administration? There has been a fall in house building in Scotland. Unsuitable accommodation, a lack of house building, and no willingness to listen to experts and change the housing bill—the Government should go away and think again, not for my sake, but for the sake of the children here in Lothian and across Scotland. 16:54 Paul McLennan: The report that was published earlier this month highlighted the devastating impact that living in poor-quality temporary accommodation can have on children’s lives. We have heard examples of that today, and I take addressing that as one of my main objectives as housing minister.”
“It is happy to accept that it is in breach of the convention, not just once but over and over again. Not only is the number of children in temporary accommodation unacceptable, but, as we have heard from other speakers, the conditions in the accommodation are often unacceptable: mould, damp and heating systems that do not work during winter months. That is unacceptable. We have a housing bill, which we will debate tomorrow in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee but which will bring almost no benefit to those children. The Government has refused to look at amendments that would improve the bill. It wants to discourage people from renting accommodation; we will see fewer properties being put up for rent in the next years because of what is in the bill. It is even worse than that.”
“There were 3,600 children in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh in 2023-24. As Mr Simpson pointed out, that figure is larger than the total number of children in temporary accommodation in the whole of Wales during the same time. The Government must stop talking and start acting to protect the most vulnerable in our society. For too many years, it has continued to oversee a worsening situation. Make no mistake, what we see in Scotland today is a modern-day scandal. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has the right “to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.” As Mr Rennie pointed out, the Government has not sought to amend, only to add to, the Labour motion before us.”
“Shelter Scotland’s report can be summed up in one sentence: the SNP has failed Scottish children. Our country is gripped by a housing crisis, which is forcing thousands of vulnerable people out of their homes and into a system that is unable to handle the workload. As has already been mentioned this afternoon, more than 33,619 households were assessed as homeless in 2023-24, including 15,000 children. Take a moment to think about that: there are 15,000 children without a safe place to call home. In the past 15 minutes of this debate, we have heard not one practical solution from the Government or its members for how that is going to change. That number should shame all 129 of us and it should shame the Scottish Government even more. In my region, here in Lothian, the picture is as bleak as it is on the national level.”
“This morning, at breakfast, I told my two daughters that I would be speaking in this debate and that I might mention them. When they asked, “Why are you mentioning us?”, I said, “Well, you go far beyond what your colleagues at school do, whether that’s helping me untie my laces, putting on my coat or doing other things.” They do not recognise themselves as young carers, and I suspect that there are lots of people in our communities who provide care but who perhaps do not appreciate what they are doing and are not looking for recognition. Finally, I thank all young unpaid carers for what they do. Without them, our society would not function. We in the Parliament and across Scotland need to respect them, not just with words on a Thursday afternoon but with action that makes a difference for them. 13:07”
“When people provide care or are being cared for, it has an effect on the whole family. Whether it be a sibling or a parent, the effect does not just stop with them. Having spoken to my siblings, I know that, because of the time that my parents had to give me, they sometimes felt short-changed or that they could not have the same experiences. They are fairly resilient and have come through that, but we must look at this in a holistic way and recognise that caring for somebody in a family affects the whole family. Secondly, we must recognise the number of unpaid carers who are simply not recognised. It brings us back to the point made in the opening speech in the debate that we do not really know how many unpaid carers there are in Scotland. Indeed, I suspect that we will never find out that number.”
“However, we have to go further and recognise that school is often a difficult place for carers. On my last visit to the carers festival, I was struck most by the different practices in different local authorities. There does not seem to be a co- ordinated approach to how children who care for another sibling, a parent or someone else in the family are treated. I appreciate that this goes beyond the minister’s portfolio, but I think that it would be helpful to get guidance on what should be in a school statement. Are we putting enough emphasis on this sort of thing in job applications? Young carers often do have empathy, compassion and resilience beyond their years, but it comes with challenges that are not often recognised by schools, employers or society in general. I want to briefly reflect on two points from my personal experience.”
“It is a real privilege to take part in the debate, and I thank the member for lodging the motion. I, too, welcome all the people in the public gallery. They have brought the average age of this Parliament down dramatically in the past half an hour. I will just make one negative point at the start: it is disappointing that not all parties are in the chamber for this debate. If we truly respect young carers, there should be total cross-party support. I, along with other members, have had the privilege of attending the Scottish young carers festival on a number of occasions. For me, it has been interesting to listen to their experiences and hear what happens in their part of Scotland. It is important that we give people a break, whether it be through weekends away, a summer holiday or a pizza on a Tuesday night.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to propose scheduling time for a parliamentary debate on the fishing industry. (S6O-04410)”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which two local authority areas have been identified as areas for the planned homelessness prevention pilots, in light of reports that the pilots are due to commence in the spring of this year. (S6O-04364)”
“I remind members that I am the convener of the cross-party group on funerals and bereavement. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to making bereavement education a formal part of the school syllabus. (S6O-04304)”
“The Presiding Officer: The final question is, that motion S6M-16342, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [draft] be approved. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Local Libraries”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament notes the critical contribution made by education in eradicating child poverty, which is a national mission and the single greatest priority for the Scottish Government; notes recent analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which highlights that Scotland will see a reduction in child poverty levels in the years ahead due to Scotland-specific policies, such as the Scottish Child Payment; further notes that the Scottish Government has committed to making further progress, and agrees that there is a collective responsibility for every local authority, and educational organisation and body in Scotland, to work together with the Scottish Government to address child poverty; commends Scotland’s teachers and schools for their work to close the poverty-related attainment gap, and recognises that progress has been made, and that this programme will require more funding certainty over the longer term; welcomes the further investment in tackling child poverty through education in the draft Scottish Budget for 2025-26, including within schools through the expansion of free school meals, the uprating of the school clothing grant, continued funding for the Scottish Attainment Challenge and investment in Bright Start Breakfasts, as well as the around £1 billion investment in funded early learning and childcare and the £3.5 million investment in new skills pathways for colleges, and agrees that all MSPs across the Parliament have a responsibility to promote the interests of children and young people and to work together to share ideas and innovation to address child poverty through education.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay] Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-16330, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, on addressing child poverty through education, is: For 73, Against 48, Abstentions 0.”